Karnataka High Court
Hanamant S/O Basappa Talli vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8936
WP No. 103499 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.103499 OF 2022(S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
1. HANAMANT S/O. BASAPPA TALLI,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC. CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
R/O: ALAGWADI WORKING AT PALABHAVI
GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. BASAVARAJ S/O. RANNU KALASE,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
R/O: ALAGWADI WORKING AT RAIBAG(RURAL)
GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
Digitally signed
by V N BADIGER
Location: High 3. MURGEPPA MAHADEV HADIMANI,
Court of
Karnataka AGE. 39 YEARS,
OCC: CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR
R/O: KOLIGUDDI WORKING AT KOLIGUDD GRAM
PANCHAYAT, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. VASANT BHAGWANT KAMBLE,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
R/O: MORAB, WORKING AT ALAKNUR
GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8936
WP No. 103499 of 2022
5. RAJU VITTAL NAIK,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
R/O. KEMPATTI WORKING AT NANDIKURLI
GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. MANJUNATH S/O. SHANKAR HONAKUPPE,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
R/O: KEMPATTI WORKING AT NANDIKURLI
GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SAMEER MAKTUM DANGE,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
R/O: RAIBAG WORKING AT GRAM
PANCHAYAT BYAKOD,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
8. RAMESH TUKARAM ASUDRE,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
R/O: MORAB WORKING AT GRAM
PANCHAYAT ALAGWADI,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.L.VANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRTARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR AND JOINT SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8936
WP No. 103499 of 2022
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (II),
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT RAIBAG,
TALUK RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
SRI V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER/SENIORITY LIST
DATED 22/6/2022 BEARING NO. f ¥ÀA/C©üªÀÈ¢Þ/UÁæ ¥À/PÁ/¹§âA¢/
« ªÀ-112/2021-22 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-G IN SO FAR AS SL. NO. 53, 54, 60, 56, 57, 59, 52
AND 51 IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING -
B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8936
WP No. 103499 of 2022
ORDER
1. The petitioners, who are working as Clerks cum Data Entry Operators are before this Court seeking quashment of the order / Seniority List dated 22.06.2022 prepared by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-G insofar as it relates to the petitioners, whose names are shown at Sl. Nos.53, 54, 60, 56, 57, 59, 52 & 51 respectively.
2. The case of the petitioners is that, they were appointed to the post of Clerk cum Data Entry Operator as per the resolutions dated 07.10.2014, 10.10.2014, 19.09.2014, 29.09.2014, 30.09.2014, 01.10.2014 & 13.10.2014 produced as Annexrues-A to A7 respectively. That, respondent No.2 vide its proceedings dated 05.09.2021, resolved to promote the persons, who are working as Clerk cum Data Entry Operators to the Post of Secretary of Gram Panchayat or Panchayat Development Officer Grade-II and in this regard published the regulations. One of the conditions is that for the promotion to the said post. the candidates should have worked continuously for a period of six years. A Circular dated 01.12.2021 had been issued by respondent No.1 - State Government providing that -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8936 WP No. 103499 of 2022 the Seniority should be considered from the date of appointment. Respondent No.5 forwarded the list of Data Entry Operators, who have completed more than six years of service to respondent Nos.3 & 4. A provisional list was prepared by respondent No.3 in which the name of petitioners were not shown. Objections were raised by the petitioners. Without considering the names of the petitioners, a final seniority list was published on 22.06.2022, in which the names of the petitioners were not included on the premise of they not having completed the required number of years of service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition, draws attention of this Court, to a Communication, dated 01.12.2021, produced at Annexure-C, which is addressed by the Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Panchayat Raj to all the Chief Executive Officers of Zilla Panchayat. In that, a reference is made to the Government order, dated 31.10.2021 providing criterias for consideration for the purpose of promotion. A tabulation column at page Nos.2 & 3 is also -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8936 WP No. 103499 of 2022 given as illustration in respect of the employees, whose date of appointment and the date of approval being different. In that only the date of appointment is to be considered and not the date of approval. Thus, referring to the said communication, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in the instant case, admittedly the petitioners were appointed during the months of September and October - 2014 as per Annexure-A series resolutions and as on 30.09.2021, they had completed six years of service, even as required under the aforesaid communication issued by the Principal Secretary to all the Chief Executive Officers, Zilla Panchayat. That, without considering the same, the respondents have taken date of approval of their appointment for the purpose of consideration of their services rendered in their posts and as such, have not included the names of the petitioners. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.
4. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Panchayat taking this Court through the documents produced along with the memo dated 22.11.2023 submits that, as per the particulars of employment and the -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8936 WP No. 103499 of 2022 dates of approval available in the Office of the respondent - Gram Panchayat, petitioner No.1 was appointed on 07.09.2016 and his appointment was approved by the Zilla Panchayat on 22.11.2016; petitioner No.2 was appointed on 26.05.2017 and his appointment was approved by the Zilla Panchayat on 14.08.2017; petitioner No.3 was appointed on 23.06.2017 and his appointment was approved by the Zilla Panchayat on 10.11.2017; petitioner No.4 was appointed on 22.07.2016 and his appointment was approved by the Zilla Panchayat on 11.06.2018; petitioner No.5 was appointed on 10.03.2017 and his appointment was approved by the Zilla Panchayat on 20.04.2017; petitioner No.6 was appointed on 23.06.2016 and his appointment was approved by the Zilla Panchayat on 29.08.2016; petitioner No.7 was appointed on 29.06.2016 and his appointment was approved by the Zilla Panchayat on 29.08.2016; & petitioner No.8 was appointed on 13.10.2014 and his appointment was approved by the Zilla Panchayat on 27.01.2022. Thus, referring to the said chart, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the date of appointment and date of approval fall short of six years of experience, the -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8936 WP No. 103499 of 2022 names of the petitioners were not included. He however submits that petitioner No.8 was appointed on 13.10.2014 only his case can be reconsidered. Thus, he submits that, as per the date of appointment and approval accorded referred to above, the petitioners were not eligible to be promoted. Additionally learned counsel for the respondent submits that submits that it is not the date of appointment alone which is relevant, but also the date on which the salaries were disbursed, as per the salary register. In this regard, he also tries to bring to the notice of this Court Annexure-G produced by the petitioner, wherein at unnumbered paragraph No.3 of page No.109 the reason assigned by the respondent - Panchayat to exclude the names of the petitioners from the list of promotees is consideration of the date of resolutions, salary register, date of disbursement of the salary into the bank accounts of the employees, attendance register and other records. Referring to the same, learned counsel insists that it is the date of disbursement of salary, which is the criteria and not the date of appointment. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard. Perused the records.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8936 WP No. 103499 of 2022
6. There is no dispute of the fact that, the petitioners were appointed as per the resolutions produced at Annexures-A to A7; wherein the petitioner No.1 has been appointed on 10.09.2014; petitioner No.2 has been appointed on 10.10.2014; petitioner No.3 has been appointed on 19.09.2014; petitioner No.4 has been appointed on 29.09.2014; petitioner No.5 has been appointed on 30.09.2014; petitioner No.6 has been appointed on 30.09.2014; petitioner No.7 has been appointed on 01.10.2014; & petitioner No.8 has been appointed on 13.10.2014 and as on 30.09.2021 they have completed six years of service.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent though admit that such resolutions were passed he however contended that the date of disbursement of salary is relevant and not the same of appointment. The above contention of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be countenanced for the more than one ground. It is settled principle of law that, it is the date of appointment and the date of joining is what primarily requires to be considered for the purpose of considering the promotion
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8936 WP No. 103499 of 2022 of employees. There is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel that it is the date of payment of salary which has to be considered. Firstly, no rule or circular is produced to support this contention; and secondly even otherwise there cannot be any such consideration, inasmuch as if in the event of employer delaying payment of salary for any reason whatsoever, in such cases date of payment of salary cannot be the criteria for consideration of promotion. Last, the same would amount to arbitrary and one without authority.
8. In the instant case, neither any date with regard to disbursement of salary of the employees as contended is provided nor any rule supporting the same is furnished. Since the resolutions at Annexures-A series under which the petitioners have been appointed on the respective dates mentioned therein is not disputed, in terms of which the petitioners have completed six years of service as on 30.09.2021, and which is the only criteria to be considered as per the communication issued by the Principal Secretary to all the Chief Executive Officers of the Districts as seen at Annexure-C, this Court is of the considered view that, the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8936 WP No. 103499 of 2022 Seniority list as provided at Annexure-G is required to be quashed to the extent of Sl. Nos.53, 54, 60, 56, 57, 59, 52 & 51 respectively.
9. Accordingly, (a) the petition is allowed; (b) the order / Seniority List dated 22.06.2022 prepared by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-G insofar as it relates to the petitioners is quashed; & (c) respondent No.3 - Panchayat shall redo the seniority list taking into consideration the dates of appointment of the petitioners as per resolution at Annexures-A series and as per the Communication at Annexure-C referred to hereinabove and shall announce such modified select list within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE VNP*/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20